Bond strength and micro-computed tomographic evaluation of pre-coated brackets

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

11
Reader(s)
15
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 31 , ISSUE 2 (November 2015) > List of articles

Bond strength and micro-computed tomographic evaluation of pre-coated brackets

Waleed Bakhadher * / Nabeel Talic / Khalid Al Hezaimi

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 201-207, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-156

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 15-August-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of metal pre-coated orthodontic brackets bonded to fluorotic and non-fluorotic teeth treated with three different etching techniques. A second aim was to determine the volume of adhesive remaining on the tooth at debond using micro-computed tomography (µCT).

Methods: Ninety extracted premolars were selected to include 45 fluorotic (test group) and 45 non-fluorotic (control group) teeth. Each group was divided into three subgroups of 15 each, which were treated as follows: 1) micro-etched; 2) acid-etched; and 3) both micro-etched and acid-etched. A bonding agent was applied to the prepared surfaces; pre-coated and light-cured brackets were attached to all teeth. An Instron universal testing machine was used to record the debonding force. Specimens were then scanned using a microCT to evaluate the amount of adhesive remaining on the teeth. The significance of the statistical tests was pre-determined at p < 0.05.

Results: Two-way ANOVA showed that fluorosis of teeth had no influence on the SBS (p = 0.165) whereas the volume of adhesive remnants was significantly higher in the control group compared with the test group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Fluorosis had no influence on the SBS of brackets, whereas it had a negative influence on retaining adhesives onto the tooth surfaces.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Grubisa HS, Heo G, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. An evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths achieved with self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:213-9.

2. Proffit WR, Fields Jr HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2013.

3. Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthod 2008;78:357-60.

4. Miller RA. Bonding fluorosed teeth: new materials for old problems. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:424-7.

5. Ateyah N, Akpata E. Factors affecting shear bond strength of composite resin to fluorosed human enamel. Oper Dent 2000;25:216-22.

6. Awliya WY, Akpata ES. Effect of fluorosis on shear bond strength of glass ionomer-based restorative materials to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:290-4.

7. Ermiş RB, Gokay N. Effect of fluorosis on dentine shear bond strength of a self-etching bonding system. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:1090-4.

8. Weerasinghe DS, Nikaido T, Wettasinghe KA, Abayakoon JB, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strength and morphological analysis of a self-etching primer adhesive system to fluorosed enamel. J Dent 2005;33:419-26.

9. Ng’ang’a PM, Ogaard B, Cruz R, Chindia ML, Aasrum E. Tensile strength of orthodontic brackets bonded directly to fluorotic and nonfluorotic teeth: an in vitro comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:244-50.

10. Adanir N, Türkkahraman H, Yalçin Güngör A. Effects of adhesion promoters on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:276-80.

11. Borsatto MC, Catirse AB, Palma Dibb RG, Nascimento TN, Rocha RA, Corona SA. Shear bond strength of enamel surface treated with air-abrasive system. Braz Dent J 2002;13:175-8.

12. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Ak”ca E. The effect of enamel air abrasion on the retention of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:15-9.

13. Reisner KR, Levitt HL, Mante F. Enamel preparation for orthodontic bonding: a comparison between the use of a sandblaster and current techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:366-73.

14. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:333-40.

15. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tandecka K, Szatkiewicz T, SporniakTutak K, Grocholewicz K. Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes. Head Face Med 2014;10:37.

16. Ryf S, Flury S, Palaniappan S, Lussi A, van Meerbeek B, Zimmerli B. Enamel loss and adhesive remnants following bracket removal and various clean-up procedures in vitro. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:25-32.

17. Lee YK, Lim YK. Three-dimensional quantification of adhesive remnants on teeth after debonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:556-62.

18. Brosh T, Strouthou S, Sarne O. Effects of buccal versus lingual surfaces, enamel conditioning procedures and storage duration on brackets debonding characteristics. J Dent 2005;33:99-105.

19. Miksi M, Slaj M, Mestrovi S. Stereomicroscope analysis of enamel surface after orthodontic bracket debonding. Coll Antropol 2003;27:83-9.

20. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:717-24.

21. Louie TM, Jones RS, Sarma AV, Fried D. Selective removal of composite sealants with near-ultraviolet laser pulses of nanosecond duration. J Biomed Opt 2005;10:14001.

22. Sudit G. Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: an in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product. Dissertation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2014.

23. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O. Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1978;6:315-28.

24. Shida K, Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Micro-shear bond strengths and etching efficacy of a two-step self-etching adhesive system to fluorosed and non-fluorosed enamel. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:182-6.

25. Suma S, Anita G, Chandra Shekar BR, Kallury A. The effect of air abrasion on the retention of metallic brackets bonded to fluorosed enamel surface. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:230-5.

26. Al Shamsi A, Cunningham JL, Lamey PJ, Lynch E. Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 2006;76:694-9.

27. Sorel O, El Alam R, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:260-6.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS